tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post115515294774777169..comments2015-09-11T09:51:32.382-04:00Comments on Debunking Christianity: Bayes' Theorm Part 2: The New Testament as HistoryDr. Hector Avaloshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10840869326406664177noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1163549769427714252006-11-14T19:16:00.000-05:002006-11-14T19:16:00.000-05:00Jim,In a sense, I agree with you. Since I have re...Jim,<BR/><BR/>In a sense, I agree with you. Since I have recently de-converted, I still may have a pro-Christian tilt to my evaluations of the evidence. However, keep in mind that my goal in these posts is to evaluate a subset of the evidence and leave a foundation for further analysis. I know there is a lot I am leaving out (for now, I hope to get to more). I want to show how the claims of Christians can be evaluate using the best inferential method available and illustrate a systematic way to evaluate a large body of evidence. (I am little surprise that people haven’t disagreed more strongly with my methodology here.) My evaluations are will likely change even after examine the claims more deeply and as more evidence is brought to my attention. <BR/><BR/><BR/>I have used your <EM>'if this REALLY happened, somebody else would have noticed' </EM> test in my response to Jason Engwer <A HREF="http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2006/09/jason-engwer-responds-to-evaluating.html" REL="nofollow">here</A>. It is implausible to think the earth shattering events recorded in Matthew 27 would have only been recorded (and survived) in only Matthews writing. The evidence you list can and should be rolled into my evaluation for the cumulative case. However, notice the trend here, even when I am biasing my evaluations in favor of Christianity, it is clear that the evidence is moving me away from belief in Christianity’s core tenants.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the comments.Bill Curryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01960828365007720739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1163435888263712822006-11-13T11:38:00.000-05:002006-11-13T11:38:00.000-05:00The trouble with your arguments is that they give ...The trouble with your arguments is that they give too much credence to the Christian position. The contradictions between the Synoptics and John show there is -- at best -- honest error in the Scriptures. The deliberate writing of a book purporting to come from a past figure (the Timothys and Titus, supposedly by Paul but obviously much later) demonstrates either 'pious fraud' or, better, the attitude in traditionalist societies that denied the value of innovation and demanded that one own's ideas be attributed to a respected past figure (as Plato claimed his own arguments were Socrates').<BR/><BR/>And that some stories in the Bible are legend is demonstrable by the simple 'if this REALLY happened, somebody else would have noticed' test. (Herod's 'slaughter of the innocents,' the drowning of the majority of Pharaoh's army, the simultaneous death of all the firstborn children of the Egyptians -- is it possible that there would be no hint of these anywhere else but in the Bible if they actually happened. We may not have documentation for those times the equivalent of what we have today, but that somehow this type of slaughter didn't get a footnote somewhere, or get mentioned in any surviving letter or tablet is simply absurd.)Prup (aka Jim Benton)http://www.blogger.com/profile/06551432986913376684noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1155235511080106462006-08-10T14:45:00.000-04:002006-08-10T14:45:00.000-04:00If the argument about the resurrection were “Is it...If the argument about the resurrection were “Is it 70% likely or 30% likely?” then the results would be very sensitive to the numbers we would assign. But keep in mind, that the Christian position is the probability of the resurrection is very close to one. Skeptics think the probability is very close to zero. Either the evidence should push us strongly in one direction or the other. Jon has mentioned some of the evidence that supports the legendary hypothesis, and I will also examine evidence used in support of the resurrection. The point this post is that the Christians appear to bear a very large evidential burden. <BR/><BR/>The Christian position is that we reject Christ because of rebellion in our hearts, not because we are using the tools of rationality provided to us by God. If following reason effectively causes individual to be condemned, that is a challenge to Christian theology.Bill Curryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01960828365007720739noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1155194402786906622006-08-10T03:20:00.000-04:002006-08-10T03:20:00.000-04:00Jon, you just offered what I consider to be the wh...Jon, you just offered what I consider to be the whole reason I don't place much stock in Bayes' theorem. Although in Bill's defense, it does mathematically specify and lay out one's assumptions. As Bill has said: <I>I would agree that the assigning of specific numbers (probabilities) to indicate degrees of belief is subjective, and I wouldn’t try to give the results airs of numerical accuracy. But I see Bayes' Theorem mainly as a way in which fair-minded thinkers can discipline themselves.</I>John W. Loftushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13565890121197051580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21219785.post-1155161887383574182006-08-09T18:18:00.000-04:002006-08-09T18:18:00.000-04:00If someone thinks my prior assessments are unjusti...<I>If someone thinks my prior assessments are unjustified, feel free to show how I should make my initial assessment.</I><BR/><BR/>I have a major problem with your initial assessment. Your numbers are radically biased in favor of the Christian.<BR/><BR/>For the record I expressed to Bill before he posted this that I disagreed with the values he used, but he prefers to give the Christian every possible break so that he cannot be accused of being unfair.<BR/><BR/>First off, the initial probability for a person having ESP in your prior post was one in a billion. Why would the initial probability of a resurrection be higher than that? One in a million seems high. I will use one in a billion.<BR/><BR/>Second, the initial probability for legend or deception should be much higher. Even the Christian would grant that when you are considering a text that makes miraculous claims usually you are dealing with legend or deception. Whether it's Benny Hinn, Joseph Smith, Judge Rutherford, St. Genevieve, stigmata, etc, most Christians (Protestants at least) regard them as fraudulent. So the presumption must be that Scripture is legend or deception as well. I would put the initial probability of fraud or deception somewhere closer to .99, as opposed to what you have (0.1).<BR/><BR/>Third, why should we assume that the miraculous explanation provides greater explanatory scope? Does the miraculous explanation explain the parallels to Horus, Inanna, or Osirus? Does it explain the early confusion about where Christ was born or when he was born? Does it explain why Paul isn't aware of an earthly ministry for Christ, or why the stories of his life become more and more impressive as subsequent texts are written? These are all clear markers of human invention, not divine origin. Legend explains all of these factors while an actual resurrection does not.<BR/><BR/>I am just flabbergasted that you could conclude that there is a one in 50,000 chance that a resurrection ocurred. Using my values we reach a far more reasonable number. 1 in 990,000,000.Jon Curryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07584653209861528971noreply@blogger.com